§ Resolutions [8th July] reported.
§
Resolutions 1 to 8 agreed to.
(4.)"That a sum, not exceeding £1,639,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course
212
of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that, having been unfortunately absent from the House yesterday, he desired now to make a few observations in connection with those Estimates. The First Lord of the Admiralty had been asked to lay on the Table of the House the Reports of the captains as to the behaviour of their ships; but he trusted that the noble Lord would be very guarded and cautious in reference to what he published as to that subject. When the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) was First Lord of the Admiralty great pressure was put upon him to lay on the Table of the House the Reports of the captains of the various ships which had been out. No procedure could, he thought, be more fatal to the best interests of the Service than that, because they would have the captains writing their Reports, not for the Admiralty itself, but virtually for the House of Commons, and there would then be some temptation to officers to colour their Reports so as to meet the popular eye. Turning to another question that had been raised, he thought that whatever arguments there might be in favour of a change in the Board of Admiralty on the accession to Office of a new Government, those arguments did not hold good in regard to the Controller of the Navy, Admiral Brandreth. Again, he should like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty for some information as to the position of Mr. Rendel, who was put into the Board about two years ago with a tremendous flourish of trumpets. At that time it was held out as a matter for national congratulation that they had at last on the Board, in the person of Mr. Rendel, a man of practical and professional experience, and they were led to expect that a new era was about to open in consequence. But they were told now that Mr. Rendel was leaving the Board. In 1868 Hobart Pasha was engaged in the Turkish Service without the slighest remuneration, and was there upon removed from the Admiralty. In 1874, when the late Mr. Ward Hunt was First Lord of the Admiralty, Hobart Pasha was reinstated in the English Navy at the express desire of the present Lord Derby, who was then Foreign Secretary—
§ MR. SPEAKERinterposed, and said, the noble Lord was not in Order in raising that question on the Vote now under discussion.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON), with reference to the Report which the noble Lord had alluded to, said, it was necessary to exercise great care and discrimination as to the documents laid before the House. Although the noble Lord's questions respecting the constitution of the Board of Admiralty were not quite germane to this Vote, ho thought it right to reply to them. The Controller was placed on the Board some time ago, and his appointment, which was to last for five years, was supposed to be independent of other changes in the constitution of the Board. He must adhere to that rule, and consequently Admiral Brandreth would continue at the Board. Mr. Rendel was placed on the Board by his Predecessor. In his capacity as a civil member of the Board he did great service; but it was necessary for him to be absent from England during a considerable portion of the year, and he therefore felt it his duty to resign the position which he recently held. But, in a friendly communication addressed to himself, Mr. Rendel said he should always be glad to place his services at the disposal of the Admiralty in regard to any questions on which they might think fit to consult him. His noble Friend must not assume that Party politics had anything to do with the constitution of the present Board. In point of fact, he was not acquainted with the political opinions of any of their professional advisers, and he had been fortunate enough to secure the services of Admiral Hood, Admiral Hoskins, and Captain Codrington, who could speak with as much experience as any three men in Her Majesty's Naval Service.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§
Resolutions 5 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
(14.)"That a sum, not exceeding £830,400, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Half-Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 188b'.
§ Resolution read a second time.
214LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he wished to refer to the reinstatement of Hobart Pasha on the Retired List. Hobart Pasha had rendered eminent services to this country. In 1868, when a captain, he entered the Service of the Porte, whereupon he had to resign his position in the English Fleet. In 1874 he was reinstated at the request of the Earl of Derby, on account of his distinguished services to his country; but in 1877, he having again joined the Turkish Fleet, he was once more struck off the English Navy List, on account of the breaking out of the Russo-Turkish War, because England could not retain the services of an officer who was serving with a country at war with one of her Allies. He had, however, recently left the Turkish Service, and, on the recommendation of Earl Granville and Lord Northbrook, he had been reinstated; and the practice of reinstating men in his position at the request of the Foreign Office was by no means new, unusual, or unprecedented. There were precedents for this course in the case of Sir Charles Napier and Admiral Sartorius. From his knowledge of Hobart Pasha's career, he could say that, no matter what uniform the Admiral wore, he was always most anxious to do everything he could to promote the interests of England, and to serve her in every way. Having been the first instrument to remove him from the Navy, and having watched his career, he desired to say that he thought Admiral Hobart deserved well of his country, and was worthy of the retired allowance which he had obtained by reinstatement.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was surprised that they had been told nothing with regard to the reinstatement of Hobart Pasha; no reason whatever had been given for it. The more he looked at this case the less he liked it. He expressed an earnest hope that before the Vote was passed some explanation should be forthcoming from either of the Front Benches; and with the object of obtaining that explanation he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £280, being the amount of the pay that would be received by Admiral Hobart Pasha for 280 days.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out"£830,100," in order to insert 215 "£880,120,"—(Sir George Campbell,)— instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That'£830,400' stand part of the said Resolution."
THE FIRST LORDsaid, that the understanding yesterday was that the Vote should be brought on for discussion; but he had nothing more to say than he said yesterday. Hobart Pasha was reinstated by an Order in Council before the present Government came into Office; and that was done after consideration by two leading Members of the late Government, Lord Granville and Lord Northbrook. If the hon. Member moved for the production of the Papers that had passed on the subject between the Admiralty and the Foreign Office he should have no objection; but they did not state much more than that application had been made. The fact was that Hobart Pasha was in the receipt of £1 a-day in 1877. But, in consequence of the war between Russia and Turkey, he, being in the employment of Turkey, was struck off the Navy List. There was no question that if Turkey had been at the time our Ally in war Hobart Pasha would have retained his rank as Admiral in our Navy. He had recently left the Turkish Service; and therefore the First Lord of the Admiralty, after consultation with the Foreign Secretary, thought there was no reason why he should not be restored to the position he held in 1877, and he would draw no more pay than he did in 1877. When two statesmen of great experience, after fully considering the circumstances of the case, had arrived at the conclusion that Hobart Pasha ought to be reinstated, if the House were to override that decision it would be a great slur on the gallant officer; and therefore he hoped that the House would support Her Majesty's Government in asking them not to overthrow the conclusion at which Lord Granville and Lord Northbrook had arrived.
§ MR. CAUSTONsaid, that after the observations of the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) he really thought the House would be glad to be placed in possession of further information on the subject. As he understood the noble Lord, it appeared that the gallant Admiral, when we were likely to go to war with Turkey, preferred to give up his 216 commission in the British Navy. [Cries of "No, no !""] That was what he understood the noble Lord to say.
THE FIRST LORDsaid, he was afraid the hon. Member's history was a little at fault. What he said was, that it was in 1877 that Hobart Pasha's name was removed from the Navy List. We were not at all likely to go to war with Turkey at that time.
§ MR. CAUSTONsaid, he begged to apologize if he were a little wrong; but without reference to the date he understood the noble Lord to say that we were near a war with Turkey. [Cries of "No, no !"] Then he had misunderstood the noble Lord.
§ SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he would speak with every respect of Hobart Pasha and the services he had rendered; but in his opinion there was a good deal in what had been said by the hon. Baronet (Sir George Campbell). There was a great deal of ambiguity in the matter; but the responsibility rested altogether with the late Government. Last night he had challenged the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) sitting on the Bench opposite, and ho told them that he knew nothing about the matter. The noble Lord now told them that Hobart Pasha had left the Turkish Service. Hobart Pasha, however, with whom he was intimately acquainted, had gave him to understand, only a fortnight ago, that he was still in the Turkish Service, if he (Sir Robert Peel) was not much mistaken. The noble Lord to-night said that the services of Hobart Pasha had been very distinguished to this country. What were his services to this country. As a matter of fact, ho had never been a Vice Admiral, he had never been even a captain in the Service of the Queen. The last command he held in this Service was as Commander of the Foxhoundm the years 1861 to 1863, and what the late Government had determined to do therefore, and what the present Government were going to sanction, was to make Commander Hobart Pasha a Vice Admiral per saltum and give him the position and pay of a retired Vice Admiral.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. H. SMITH)asked if he might interrupt the right hon. Gentleman for one moment? The matter had nothing to do with the present Government. The reinstatement was done by an Order in 217 Council under the late Government, and the present Government had no power in the matter whatever.
§ SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he quite understood that, and he had said over and over again that the held the late Government responsible, and he wished to enter his earnest protest against the step they had taken. He thought, and he maintained, that the hon. Gentleman opposite ought certainly to give them some explanation on the matter, because there was no doubt whatever that some correspondence had taken place on the subject. He did not think that any Foreign Secretary should deal with such matters as this, which solely affected the Admiralty.
§ MR. CAINEsaid, he could do nothing further than repeat what he had said yesterday, and which was very little. If he were still at the Admiralty, or had access to the Admiralty Papers, he would be able to discover what had taken place between Lord North brook and Lord Granville, who, he believed, were jointly responsible for this grant. These matters did not come before the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, however, and he had not seen the Papers on the subject. He had not had time to consult Lord Granville or Lord Northbrook, and, consequently, he did not know the motives which had induced them to recommend that a pension should be granted to Hobart Pasha. If hon. Members wished any further information, they had better have a Question put to the late Foreign Secretary in the other House, who, no doubt, would be able to say what reason the Foreign Office had for pressing the claim. He was sorry he could give no further information.
§ MR. RAMSAYsaid, he would not venture to state that the reasons were not quite sufficent to warrant such a pension being given to Hobart Pasha. His services as Commander might have warranted such a thing; but he thought they ought to have some evidence that it was so. It ought to be clearly proved, moreover, that he was no longer in the Service of the Turkish Government. If the hon. Member carried his point to a division, he (Mr. Ramsay) would vote against the pension.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he wanted to know how this pension came into the 218 present Estimates at all? He understood it was only granted on the 24th of June, and he should therefore like to know how it came into these Estimates? It might come into a Supplementary Estimate this year, or the ordinary Estimates next year; but he could not see how the pension could be affected by the reduction of this Vote.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. RITCHIE)said, it was explained yesterday that it was clear that no provision was made in the present Estimates for any pension to Hobart Pasha. The Estimates had been prepared a long time before the decision to reinstate Hobart Pasha was arrived at. There had been some attempt made to saddle the present Government with part of the responsibility of this Vote. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, the last speaker had held them responsible for endeavouring to press on the Committee the Vote for Hobart Pasha's pension.
§ MR. RAMSAYpointed out that what he did say was that the present Government were responsible for pressing on in Committee the Vote which contained the pension. What he contended was, not that they were responsible for the granting of the pension or the pension itself, but that they were responsible for pressing the House now to pass the Vote.
THE SECRETARYsaid, what the hon. Member had said was that the Government were responsible for pressing this reinstatement on the House. Now, what was the proposal before the House? It was that they should reduce this Vote by the amount of Hobart Pasha's pension. There might be a surplus on this Vote which would be sufficient for the whole or partial payment of the pension; but the Government did not know that this would be so. Therefore, it would be impossible to stop the pension out of that Vote. The sole purpose of the Admiralty had been to allow the discussion on this Vote. The real facts of the case were these. Admiral Hobart Pasha, having been reinstated by the late Government, would the present Government be justified in inflicting such an indignity upon that gallant officer as to again remove his name? While the Government had taken no 219 part in the original reinstatement of Hobart Paslia, they were not prepared to take upon themselves the responsibility of advising Her Majesty to once more remove his name.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he could not assent to the financial view of the question which had just been presented to the House by the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Ritchie). It was, of course, true that the pension was not included in this Vote when the Estimate was settled; but it was chargeable upon it, and a surplus might be available for it. Even if there was not sufficient surplus from this Vote, they would be able to make use of a surplus in any other of the Army Votes to make up the pension, so that the question of paying the pension could be legitimately raised on this Vote. It had been said, however, quite truly, that the present Government had not reinstated Hobart Pasha; and, therefore, he thought it was hard to ask the House either to ratify the Vote or refuse it. The hon. Member said that they could not ask him to undo what had been done. That was true; but the fact was that they did not know anything about the matter. The proper course, in his opinion, would be to adjourn the discussion until they could get some information on the subject from some Member of the Foreign Office or of the late Government. He, therefore, begged to move the adjournment of the debate in order to give time for some Member connected with the Foreign Office under the late Government to be present to give some explanation.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—{Mr. Courtney.)
THE FIRST LORDsaid, he would not object to the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). He had stated to the House all that he knew upon the subject; but he was bound to say that he did not know that his information was very accurate. It was possibly the right course to pursue to reduce a Vote because they believed somebody had been unreasonably granted a pension by an Order in Council. Therefore, it might be as well to adjourn the debate.
§ MR. BUCHANANasked if the noble Lord would produce the Correspondence?
THE FIRST LORDsaid, there was no Correspondence that he knew of. He had no information with regard to it.
LORD HENRY LENNOXwanted to know for what purpose they were going to postpone the matter, after the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) had stated he had no further information to give? What day did they intend to postpone it to?
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he considered that there was a very important principle involved. They did not know what the pension was for, nor whether the man was entitled to it, except that he had occupied an inferior position in the English Service. It would be a grave scandal if, when the country was already burdened with a large number of pensioners, they should vote him a pension as a Vice Admiral in our Service.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QHER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH)said, their object in agreeing to postpone the Vote was to enable some Member of the late Government to be present to explain the circumstances under which the reinstatement of Admiral Hobart was made. The question had been raised not on account of anything that the present Government had done, or for which they were responsible. All they had to do was to take up the Vote and pass it. What they felt was, that when this Vote came on again, that some Member of the late Government, who was cognizant of the circumstances, should come forward and explain matters. If no further explanation was forthcoming, however, then they trusted that the House would not further postpone the question.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Debate adjourned till Monday next.
§ Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.